Peer’s post: “Hi Classmate and Prof
From the e-Activity, summarize at least two (2) arguments presented for and against granting Sandusky’s motion for a new criminal trial. Identify the most likely factors that you believe would support the judge’s decision to grant a new trial. Provide a rationale for your response.
Jerry Sandusky’s reasons for why he felt the judge should grant him a replacement criminal trial is because he has claimed that his lawyers lacked sufficient time to arrange and the statute of limitations for some charges had expired. Mr. Sandusky is being convicted of abusing 10 boys, some on Penn State’s campus. One of the accusers testified during the trial, who’s investigation began in late 2008. The most likely cause for the judge to grant a replacement trial would be either insufficient evidence or the improper use of hearsay testimony and erroneous rulings. John, a married, law-abiding, father of two children is serving as a juror during a trial where a toddler had been murdered. Jerry Sandusky, seen here leaving the Centre County courthouse on the night he was found guilty, will return to Bellefonte Monday with a new onslaught of arguments about whether he received a fair trial on child sex abuse charges. We know it’s an argument that probably believes has been asked and answered already, a question that goes against the grain, and others just wish would go away. But in the American criminal justice system, it’s one that – sooner or later – has to be reckoned with to reassure ourselves that facts and fairness matters: even in the face of a state-of-the-art, 21st Century media feeding frenzy. In this round, defense attorney Alexander Lindsay of Butler has basically dissected every frame of the June 2012 trial, trying to seek out places where Sandusky’s trial lawyers made strategic, factual or other errors. But in some cases, those errors will also relate directly to the actions of the case prosecutors and decisions by presiding Judge John Cleland. In Monday’s proceeding, Lindsay will ask Cleland to grant an evidentiary hearing – with new witness testimony – where the defense can make its best case that there were errors in the trial so significant that they warrant a dismissal of the verdict and, at minimum, a new trial.
John, a married, law-abiding, father of two children is serving as a juror in a trial where a child had been murdered. From lecture 3, determine the significant impact that a juror from the described demographic could potentially have in the outcome of this particular criminal trial. Provide a rationale in your response.Even when we consider murder offenders sentenced to either life As the father of a teen offender serving life without parole pointed out to us: “I’m a what Do you think that God will leave me in prison for the rest of my life?” they need to turn their lives around and become law-abiding members of society.”